Evolution & Atheism... Is it really more plausible?
- Thread starter ICs2Xist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's two paragraphs...why would you even bother replying to anything I have to say if you can't be bothered sparing 30 seconds to read two paragraphs. Why also would you respond to tell me you couldn't be bothere sparing a few seconds to gloss over it....Cxizent said:
So we're now gloating about people responding to our poorly thought out arguaments? You're now going to try and claim you were trolling because you said something stupid and got called on it? Whatever, I don't really care a whole lot, but it's a little pathetic that you feel the need to try and claim it was intentional, especially on an anonymus forum.Cxizent said:
I see another one of these threads, I will repeat my previous statement.
"Anyhow I tend to avoid Religious people rather than try to shake my own definition of sense into them. And that is just it, it is all by our own definition. My own definition of sense could be that my mouse mat is a god in the form of plastic, and that he will one day revert into his original form to strike justice into all. And there will be those who tell me I am wrong, because they have free speech, and I will tell them they are wrong, because I have free speech. In actuality I am an atheist and don't believe anybody enforces justice in the world. But I feel that it is only fair that others believe in anything they like, however stupid it may seem to me. That is all there is to say."
And if you have a problem with why atheists believe what they believe (or dont) and why they feel they are more in the right. The reason I personally am an Atheist is because I had religion forced down my neck for six bloody bleeding years at a religious school. Six whole years of continuously praying every morning, six years having to pray despite my beliefs. I was never a man of god yet still religion was forced down my neck more aggressively than any atheist possibly could. It was the only school close enough but I still feel a hateful scar where Christians have tried to brand me. But never mind, keep on making threads about how Atheists keep on trying to convert people in a hypocritical manner despite misenformedly reffering to them as atheists and not anti-theists. Keep on hypocritically calling atheists misinformed and judgemental despite the twang of hypocrisy. I usually don't get this riled about religion but it is quite early in the morning and this is the second religion thread in the time span of a mere two days. And as much as I try to avoid Christians and not boycott them I find myself surrounded by it so often and their arguments are so thin I can see right through them. Still I will try to keep to myself in future if you don't like to see other peoples sides of the argument.
"Anyhow I tend to avoid Religious people rather than try to shake my own definition of sense into them. And that is just it, it is all by our own definition. My own definition of sense could be that my mouse mat is a god in the form of plastic, and that he will one day revert into his original form to strike justice into all. And there will be those who tell me I am wrong, because they have free speech, and I will tell them they are wrong, because I have free speech. In actuality I am an atheist and don't believe anybody enforces justice in the world. But I feel that it is only fair that others believe in anything they like, however stupid it may seem to me. That is all there is to say."
And if you have a problem with why atheists believe what they believe (or dont) and why they feel they are more in the right. The reason I personally am an Atheist is because I had religion forced down my neck for six bloody bleeding years at a religious school. Six whole years of continuously praying every morning, six years having to pray despite my beliefs. I was never a man of god yet still religion was forced down my neck more aggressively than any atheist possibly could. It was the only school close enough but I still feel a hateful scar where Christians have tried to brand me. But never mind, keep on making threads about how Atheists keep on trying to convert people in a hypocritical manner despite misenformedly reffering to them as atheists and not anti-theists. Keep on hypocritically calling atheists misinformed and judgemental despite the twang of hypocrisy. I usually don't get this riled about religion but it is quite early in the morning and this is the second religion thread in the time span of a mere two days. And as much as I try to avoid Christians and not boycott them I find myself surrounded by it so often and their arguments are so thin I can see right through them. Still I will try to keep to myself in future if you don't like to see other peoples sides of the argument.
You should have done some research instead. There's in fact shitloads of evidence for evolution. I'm not going to pander your laziness by giving it to you though, go and look for yourself.
Besides, I think everyone else gave you enough.
Can mods lock this now? Please? Pwetty pwease?
Besides, I think everyone else gave you enough.
Can mods lock this now? Please? Pwetty pwease?
I'm more inclined to say... I'm a christian, but not a religious person... I see evolution as plausable, and i see creation as plausable as well... I however do not think that brain power should be consumed trying to prove one over the other in any case as we need all the brains we can get thinking about how to save our relatively hairless human hides from extinction... y'know... alternative power sources that aren't nuclear, such as geothermal. alternative fuel sources. that kinda thing.
I see scientists who spend their free time arguing about evolution being the only truth and spend their ontime researching more ways to try and prove said point as disgusting as I find the majority of hypocritical christians who preach and don't act on it...
I say leave this argument/conversation/debate to the dogs and cats and other animals who aren't actively saving lives and developing new and interesting ideas, the topic is so old it's getting moldy!
I see scientists who spend their free time arguing about evolution being the only truth and spend their ontime researching more ways to try and prove said point as disgusting as I find the majority of hypocritical christians who preach and don't act on it...
I say leave this argument/conversation/debate to the dogs and cats and other animals who aren't actively saving lives and developing new and interesting ideas, the topic is so old it's getting moldy!
One of the main issues concerning christians and their problems with evolution is the fact that they very often don't define where their problems lie. They instead use the broad term "evolution" and many think that they're trying to debate all of it. Natural selection, or micro-evolution is proven and happens all around us at all times.
Many christians though, have a problem with of course the "bio-genesis" and macro-evolution. The mentioning earlier of many domestic breeds of dogs coming from a wolf is of course completely 100% true. The issue is not that the dog came from a wolf. The issue is that a dog is not a different species from a wolf. It is only a different breed, much like the different races of humanity.
Wolf: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
Dog: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
BTW, I've heard the whole "vestigil" argument before with the human tailbone being pointed out. Honestly, that is a very important muscle anchoring point that I can guarantee you, most anyone would hate being without. It's by no means "vestigil". I'm only talking about the tailbone here though. :cough:
Also, I find it very interesting that differing bone structure in very human looking layouts have quite often been proven to being homo-sapiens that had a form of bone disease or were just different variations. If you take the bone structure of a typical African male (based on environmental factors, not racial) and the bone structure of a typical Asian male, you will find a plethora of differences in their structure, the density of the bone, the length of limbs, etc. Not to mention the fact that facial bone growth is a proven fact as individuals age. I would find it to be fascinating if many of these "neanderthal-esque" skeletons were radically aged individuals who'se facial bone structure had not stopped growing, as is the case currently, giving prominant ridges, etc... :shrug: just some things to think about from a scientific standpoint.
Many christians though, have a problem with of course the "bio-genesis" and macro-evolution. The mentioning earlier of many domestic breeds of dogs coming from a wolf is of course completely 100% true. The issue is not that the dog came from a wolf. The issue is that a dog is not a different species from a wolf. It is only a different breed, much like the different races of humanity.
Wolf: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
Dog: Kingdom - Animalia, Phylum - Chordata, Class - Mammalia, Order - Carnivora, Family - Canidae, Genus - Canis, Species - Canis lupus
BTW, I've heard the whole "vestigil" argument before with the human tailbone being pointed out. Honestly, that is a very important muscle anchoring point that I can guarantee you, most anyone would hate being without. It's by no means "vestigil". I'm only talking about the tailbone here though. :cough:
Also, I find it very interesting that differing bone structure in very human looking layouts have quite often been proven to being homo-sapiens that had a form of bone disease or were just different variations. If you take the bone structure of a typical African male (based on environmental factors, not racial) and the bone structure of a typical Asian male, you will find a plethora of differences in their structure, the density of the bone, the length of limbs, etc. Not to mention the fact that facial bone growth is a proven fact as individuals age. I would find it to be fascinating if many of these "neanderthal-esque" skeletons were radically aged individuals who'se facial bone structure had not stopped growing, as is the case currently, giving prominant ridges, etc... :shrug: just some things to think about from a scientific standpoint.
The fact that there are a million mistakes from a scientific viewpoint in the bible disproves from the get-go the false nature of the bible. The flood, the fact that slavery was approved by god, incest, the fact that god was always going on about this or that to everyone back then but now he doesn't say anything to anyone besides homeless people and the fact that he is always the reason for war (or at least the excuse used) should be more then enough for any person that can comprehend simple logic that the christian god is nothing more then a myth, albeit a pervasive one in our world. The sooner we realize that this life is all we have the sooner we can start making it better for everyone instead of waiting on a flying spaghetti monster to do it for us. I realize that there are people out there that can't stand the thought that they believed a lie for their entire life but get over it. It's the 21st century not the dark ages. Time to move on.
Because our early ancestors were not a single group living in one place, primates existed all over the globe, in nearly all conditions imaginable. Different conditions demanded different kinds of qualities. In jungles the ones with long strong arms thrived, as they could avoid predators and move through the trees more easily, thus moving their genes forward. In the african savannah, where a standing position, longer legs and other human-like characteristics increased the chances of survival, the ancestors of "homo homo sapiens" appeared.Jedoro said:
The primate's habitat dictated which individuals could move their possibly favorable genetic mutations forwards. And as primates lived in different conditions, different species appeared. All this over the period of hundreds of thousands of years, not a week.
The other primates you speak of still live in conditions that haven't required/allowed them to evolve into something like humans. And all we are looking at now is but a tiny fraction of time, we(you) think animals no longer evolve, that they have reached a stable level. NO! All life constantly evolves, the other primates still keep evolving, you just won't be around to see the results 200,000 years later.
There's not a single serious biologist or scientist in the world who would deny that our genes mutate: you, whoever reading this, are a mutant: the genes of your parents mixed, were copied a million billion times over in you, and every once in a while the RNA makes a tiny mistake, a mutation. In the avarage human body, about 1,000,000,000 mutations happen every week. Only one in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is a favorable one that thrives, and it may be an insignificant tiny thing, but it happens. Give it enough time, say, a few hundred thousand years, and you might end up with a new species.
In evolution, the latest species isn't always the most advanced or the best- the evolative flowchart of life does not have an ending, it shapes and shifts according to conditions the species live in: it's not a flowchart, it's a pile of goo sliding down an endless hill. Some bits of it fall off or get stuck in the ground: the species that are extinct. the rest keep on going, constantly changing and bending to meet the requirments to keep on going. the goo might spilt in half and keep on going in two directions, some bits of it might keep together better and keep on going more easily, some slide down faster. And the goo won't stop, unless the hill (the environment) stops it.
Exactly just how the goo started flowing in the first place is not the question here. Evolution is. Evolution means life forms changing to adapt to their habitat. Not the birth of the very first cell. (although the two subjects are right next to each other.)
The theory of gravity isn't a lot less solid than most people would beleive. I'm going off topic here, but since it's been mentioned I now feel I have to rant. I hate the theory of gravity (or at least what of it is taught to mechanical engineering students). I cannot accept that there is a minute, constant force proportional only to gravity, to me it seems absurd there can be a force applied with out any change in the energy of the system. /breathAbengoshis said:
First of all, the whole 'science versus religion' discussion is based on what's called a 'false dichotomy': either one or the other can be true, or more specifically: if one is flawed, the other MUST be true. Which is a logical fallacy.ICs2Xist said:
The theory of evolution, however, is not at all an end-all and be-all explanation, as scientific theories rarely are.
In fact, the main conclusion of Darwin's 'origin of species' was that different species evolved out of necessity. He based this on observations made on a bunch of islands in the pacific (don't remember which), where he noticed that on every different island, several bird species evolved dramatically different but shared a common ancestor. For instance: one bird developed a big strong beak because of all the hard-shelled nuts there, while another apparently started hunting insects as part of its diet.
Extrapolating this back in time, it explained a lot on why we have so many resemblances to the great apes, how some birds are flightless, etcetera. And in time, it became the framework of pretty much all of biology, because man, it explained damn near everything.
In many ways, the conclusions drawn from Darwin's observations are a lot like the observations that led to the big bang theory: after observing that the universe was expanding, it was plausible by extrapolating back in time that at one point, the entire universe must have been at one place at a time.
Both scientific theories are based on the observation and interpretation of phenomena. Scientific theories, by definition, do not imply an end-all and be-all explanation for the entire natural world evarrr. Instead they are assumptions, formulated to be falsifiable (they could be disproved by observation), useful but always flawed (as human observation and interpretation always is).
Ok I have to stop talking now.
You are forgiven.
This post is a lot more neutral and non-flamebaity than most threads I've encountered so far. So +1 internet for you.
A very interesting read about genetic mutations.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-01/980213843.Ge.r.html
And oh ppl are going to have a field day with this. Try to stomach the "religious speak" and read the whole thing through. (This is a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama.)
http://www.leaderu.com/science/bishop.html
Oooo and more!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021025065902.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-01/980213843.Ge.r.html
And oh ppl are going to have a field day with this. Try to stomach the "religious speak" and read the whole thing through. (This is a professor of exercise physiology at the University of Alabama.)
http://www.leaderu.com/science/bishop.html
Oooo and more!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021025065902.htm
Your post demonstrates a dearth of understanding regarding the theories of evolution and natural selection. I do not think it is fair to expect posters on an internet forum to provide such information. I suggest you do your own research into the matter if you are truly interested in the answers.ICs2Xist said:
